3 ms·

There is plenty of evidence that leakyness is a common feature of natural gas infrastructure. The Methane being leaked is 86x more potent than co2 over 20 year

There is plenty of evidence that leakyness is a common feature of natural gas infrastructure. The Methane being leaked is 86x more potent than co2 over 20 years and 34x more potent over 100 years. At 1% leakage todays natural gas emissions don't gain a climate advantage over coal until around 2100. At 2% leakage todays natural gas emissions are still significantly worse than coal in 2100. https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/global-spike-in-atmospheric-methane-linked-to-fracking-322843 https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/glo... http://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-matters-98918 http://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-le... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

frank2 7y ago
Interesting. Oil companies frack to get petroleum, and are OK with burning the natural gas at the well head. I get the impression that a big reason they choose to capture the natural gas instead is criticism of just burning it by environmentalists, but maybe it is more environmentally friendly to just burn it in the absence of the political will to ban fracking. (I am assuming that burning at the well head is an effective way to reduce the amount of unburnt gas released.)
- breakyerself 7y ago
  Apparently I misunderstood how it works. Averaged over 100 years its 34x more potent, but the vast majority of the impact is early on.
- throwaway100773 7y ago
  They flare it where there is no infrastructure or insufficient infrastructure to get the gas to market. There are limits on what can be flared and this is what drives some of the decision making. However, if sufficient infrastructure exists they are literally burning money by flaring the gas or just letting it evaporate into the atmosphere.

frank2 7y ago

Interesting. Oil companies frack to get petroleum, and are OK with burning the natural gas at the well head. I get the impression that a big reason they choose to capture the natural gas instead is criticism of just burning it by environmentalists, but maybe it is more environmentally friendly to just burn it in the absence of the political will to ban fracking. (I am assuming that burning at the well head is an effective way to reduce the amount of unburnt gas released.)

breakyerself 7y ago
Apparently I misunderstood how it works. Averaged over 100 years its 34x more potent, but the vast majority of the impact is early on.
throwaway100773 7y ago
They flare it where there is no infrastructure or insufficient infrastructure to get the gas to market. There are limits on what can be flared and this is what drives some of the decision making. However, if sufficient infrastructure exists they are literally burning money by flaring the gas or just letting it evaporate into the atmosphere.